Hi Sam,

Thanks for your message. May I clarify please - are these questions you are
posing to the NCSG, or to the Geographic Regions Review Working Group? If it's
the latter, I'll find a way to incorporate them into our consultation response —
though I think the Working Group would argue that they have already addressed
them. They are currently in the third stage of their work; in the first phase
back in 2009 they were asking about definitions and current and future uses of
the regions. Should we be asking that they re-visit this topic?
Thanks,
Ayden
On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 4:55 PM, Sam Lanfranco [log in to unmask] wrote:
Ayden,

Short comment: To be clear, the question of why we need regions was not mean to
open up a Yes/No discussion, it was to address the HOW we get there.
WHAT is the issue: Goal of greater geographic diversity and inclusiveness in
ICANN processes
WHY is this an issue: ICANN is committed to a multistakeholder model of
engagement in policy formation and implementation within its remit
HOW do we get there: (a) how should regions be defined; (b) what are the
entitlements of regions; (c) what are the obligations of regions

At the core of defining regions there are three considerations:
(1) For each member in each region does that membership give that member an
adequate and equitable voice? (Are they in the right region?)
(2) What entitlements flow from membership in an ICANN region grouping? (How are
they equitably distributed among members?)
(3) What obligations flow from membership in an ICANN regional grouping? (How
are they equitably honored across members?)

If I were retained as a strategic planning consultant here I would work the
group through questions 1,2, & 3, and take the need for regions as given.

Sam L.

On 2016-04-05 9:31 AM, Ayden Férdeline wrote:
Hi Sam et al,

Thanks for your interesting comments. I like that you've started from the basic
question of why do we even have or need regions. I've been thinking about that
this morning - I think geographical boundaries and ensuring diversity here matters , but I struggle to understand how much it matters. As best I can tell, ICANN established regions to ensure 'diversity'
on the Board of Directors, and from that the regions have come to be seen as a
mechanism for ensuring population diversity in ICANN activities. As Milton noted
there are other areas where we can forge commonalities (languages, economic
grounds, cultural factors) -- and probably more effectively -- so should we ask
for a new regions framework (rather than a geographic regions framework)?
There is now a second draft of our statement on Google Docs. For those who have read the first draft, the
only additions are paragraphs 3, 4, 5, and 7. I think paragraphs 5 and 7 could
be a little contentious. I'm not precious about language; if anyone would like
to revise or reword it, please do. This is just a draft. Once I have some
feedback from the community on these points, I'll look to strengthen the
conclusion of the statement in a third draft by adding some 'asks'. Please feel
free to edit the document and to add new bullet points or arguments I may have
missed.
The deadline for consultation responses on this report is 24 April. I'd like to
get a 3rd draft ready by next Tuesday (12 April) with a view to submitting this
to the Comments Forum on 19 April.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-c2vVT2DNO73l89wfZTvKtY70rmaid8g7XBO-Vto9SM/edit?usp=sharing
I welcome and look forward to hearing your thoughts.
Best wishes,
Ayden


[rest deleted]

Ayden Férdeline Statement of Interest